@Syn -- Well, buddy, STAND UP for what you believe. Start wearing a dress to work and a lot of heavy make-up, and when you eventually get demoted/fired, whatever, file your lawsuit. The judge will not rule in your behavior because the company will make the argument that your behavior is disruptive to the workplace / destructive to the company image or something along those lines...AND IT WILL HOLD UP in court. Why? Because the overwhelming, vast majority of people *disagree* with you and your thinking. The vast, overwhelming majority of people *like* social norms, and they benefit society.

I will actually ask you the counter question: How do *MOST* social norms harm society? I am not saying that there aren't *some* that could be questioned...but let's talk about the general concept of "social norms". HOW do they harm society, because there are a few of you that shriek bloody murder any time the notion of social norms comes up. Driving on a particular side of the street, for example, is a good social norm, as is washing your hands after you shit, or perhaps in some countries not shaking hands with your ass-wiping hand. These are (EVIL!!!) social norms. How are they bad?

I think I covered most of what you asked in your post to me Obi but, I should add that people change. If one of the boys find himself unhappy he may change his style of dress. To a traditionally male one, just like a kid with a bad name could change it. Everyone about a person is fluid and shaped by their environment. If they choose to keep wearing pink and the like that is their choice too.

Eh....I think you're a bit of a nutter Obi to call child abuse on the children sleeping with their parents.

Social norms can be good. They can also be bad. It all depends on what they restrict. In this case they simply reinforce an artificial construct gender traits. Rather then laws or something useful.

Though there are a lot of stupid laws too.

Read the article, obiwanobiwan. It actually sounds pretty neat what they do with mattresses and fort, and although these people are woefully misguided, they certainly love their kids a lot and in the proper way. But can this sleeping arrangement happen when one of the kids is 15? Would you want to have a certain kind of dream when your mom's lying next to you? Imagine that morning.

Again, a really sad story. Is it so reactionary to raise the kids as boys with the intention to accept them if they choose to live some other way later? These parents are inserting gender confusion where there very probably would have been none.

As for Post-Modernism, that's the most poisonous viewpoint in the history of Western civilization. Nothing but obscurantism and psychobabble which is unmaking the Enlightenment.

Sure they might have been no gender confusion. But perhaps that's because the boys would suppress that nature to fit with what they've been told is how they are supposed to be.

There is a lot I dislike about post-modernism don't get me wrong there. In a lot of things I hold a more modernist view point. However I think gender issues and LGBT is one of those areas were Post-Modernism couldn't be more right. It should be an individual thing and we shouldn't have to accept a place in society just because that's the way things 'should' be. Class systems don't work, our current gender system is just that a class system.

OK, damian.

That was a lovely bit of intellectualized reasoning.

However--that is, in this instance, nothing more than intellectual dribble or, to be fair, your seperation of sexes and genders is a fair observation, and even true, and not a poit I'd contest at all, I support that assertion.

Even so, your using that to intellectualize this is absurd.

"But obi!" the website shouts back, outraged, "You waste an inordinate amount of time YOURSELF intellectualizing on this site, how is it it's OK for you to do so and not OK for damian! Hypocrite!"

Well, I do "PHILOSOPHY Weekly," dealing with generally abstract ideas.

I do NOT intellectualize specific cases and specific people in this manner, as you are doing with this kid. This is not a test subject--as much as his/her parents would like to treat him/her as such--and not an abstract IDEA of a person going genderless or against social norms, this is a real kid who is going to have to deal with OTHER real kids, and to treat that poor kid as he/she is being treated is grossly negligent at best and cruel and nearly abusive at worse.



As far as your trying to bring in Post-Modernism into this...I hate it.

I really, REALLY hate Post-Modern Philosophy.

I hate it in the horrible abomination of an adaptation that was Ethan Hawke's "Hamlet." (You KNOW I loathe something when I criticize a version of HAMLET...)

I hate it in the Matrix movies.

I hate it in the various pontificating, pretentious books that spout this nonsense.

My point? Love it or hate it--guess where *I* fall--Post-Modernism, and most philosophy, to be honest, has no place in something so fundamental to life as raising a baby! This is not a matter of sex vs. gender or reality vs. construct or whatever else! This is a REAL KID that is going to suffer here!

Your "truths," damian, are at best VERY debatable, and at worst are insufferable and extraneous to this discussion of a real human being.

Bring that sort of thinking to PW, for sure, I'd LOVE to hear what you have to say and debate you on it.

But for a case of a real, flesh-and-blood person, this is no case, no call for Shakespeare, Nietzsche, Milton, Sartre, Shaw, Plato, Aristotle, Rand, Kant, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Communism, Elitism, Existentialism, Rationalism, or any other author or "ism" floating about Intellectual land.

This is a case for real action and consideration--not abstract ideologies.

And I read the article, Invictus...they do sound as if they love their kids...

But loving kids isn't enough to be qualified to raise them, and raising your kids in such a manner as to not even prepare them for the outside world where they will be mocked and subjected to pain is irresponsible.

lol, uber-relativism

And perhaps they would do any number of other things as well. These parents are still putting these children at a huge social disadvantage, and are leading them either to a hell of their peers mocking them or a life of drifting with no normal connections to the wider world. Or both.

gender issues can be both an individual thing and there be a way things should be in society. I have no problem with somebody (well, some adult) living the most outrageous lifestyle they want to so long as it hurts no one else. But I still might think it's wrong. Society is perfectly justified in regulating itself.

I'll acknowledge that perhaps an intellectual discourse on the issue is not a fair way to discuss a flesh and blood human. However ideology is a built in part of raising a child you are teaching them your values, and you are shaping their lives based on how you like to live. This isn't about turning the kid into some abstract lab rat, this is about giving him the freedom to choose how he wants to live, by refusing to teach him/her gender norms. And that's part of the reason I like it so much. I've been raised in a method that emphasizes the importance of what a boy should do and what a girl should do, I still struggle with it, if I had been raised to care less about the gender dichotomy, I think I might be happier and freer as a person now. The counter balance to that is I'd have undergone more teasing. I think that by the children experiencing the teasing they can choose if it is worth it to them to do what they please, to be individuals or if they prefer not to stick out.

What makes it okay for an adult but not a kid? You ever hate the phrase you'll understand when you're older as a kid? Kids are just as smart as anyone else and just as capable of making choices. Perhaps not as informed ones but they'll be informed of it sooner or later by someone who thinks it's their place to do so.

obiwanobiwan, you are totally a pot calling a kettle black. There's certainly a distinction between what damian wrote and your pontifications, but it's a distinction without a difference.

Can't promise to bring this to PW obi. I just brought it up here because I wanted to help people understand my objections to this whole boys must do this girls must do that.

And to allow people to look at mental gender. I'm more then willing to discuss it with people and provide them information. However I'd rather not be hammered on my views, as I do hold them rather closer to my heart then most of my views and as such have pretty thin skin when it comes to LGBT issues.

"Jazz doesn’t mind. One of his favourite books is 10,000 Dresses, the story of a boy who loves to dress up. But he doesn’t like being called a girl. Recently, he asked his mom to write a note on his application to the High Park Nature Centre because he likes the group leaders and wants them to know he’s a boy.

Jazz was old enough for school last September, but chose to stay home. “When we would go and visit programs, people — children and adults — would immediately react with Jazz over his gender,” says Witterick, adding the conversation would gravitate to his choice of pink or his hairstyle.

That’s mostly why he doesn’t want to go to school. When asked if it upsets him, he nods, but doesn’t say more."

-From the article (Yep...that experiment looks to be working out just perfectly...)

Maybe adult's not the right word. Somebody who understands what they're doing? Say, by 16 or 17? Kids are not as smart as everyone else. They're incomplete, unfinished people. That's not to say you're done developing once you reach adulthood, but a child is by definition not as mature as an adult, generally speaking.

I did hate the phrase "you'll understand when you're older." But now I'm older and I understand. Kids are dumb and often wrong, that's why they need to be taught.

Pot calling a kettle black...I have to be honest, I've never heard that one before...maybe it's a regional thing (or maybe my generation just isn't used to anything without "You fucking idiot!" laced in it...or maybe I just missed a step.) ;)

But I still say it's different--case in point, yes, I argue that some people are qualitatively superior to others as a result of their efforts, but I don't attach that argument to a real-life person (at least not a living one, the dead you can muck around with a bit, I suppose, but the living should be left out of intellectual idscourse and treated as people and not as idealized abstractions.)

A thread which discusses gender studies AND postmodernism?

I wonder which other buzzword will complete such an Unholy Trinity...

Is there seriously a need for explanation why a FIVE YEAR OLD cannot be trusted to make good long term decisions for him/her/whatever-self? This is borderline inanity.

If we were talking 16, 17, you can look on a case-by-case basis and find exceptions. The community here has some such examples, children of that age that are obviously capable of significant rational thought and making their own decisions maturely.

BUT THEY'RE FIVE, TWO, AND NEWBORN. Come ON, people.

also @obi: you missed a step. ;)

@ulytau: right-wing social engineering. done.

It's over the borderline, President Eden.

I remember being really excited for preschool, and I'd think a lot of people were too. The fact that this poor kid didn't want to go play with kids his own age and have stories read to him for half a day should say something about the effectiveness of their parenting. The fact that they gave in to him says a lot more.

So, PE. Kids make mistakes they learn. That's how things roll. I'd argue against allowing the kid to undergo sex reassignment surgery. But allowing him/her to dress how they want. It is isn't a long term decision. It can change. You know that really frustrating phrase it's a just a phase they'll grow of out it. Well they might, if not then they will always have that option to change.

They are people, which is exactly why they are involved. LGBT issues are a fairly modern thing. The people involved with them are mostly still alive. We do talk about them. In my little LGBT community we talk about this sort of stuff all the time. How it relates to us, and the world around us.

I'm against turning someones life into an experiment against their will. But give me a break allowing them to choose what they want to do. You can call it an experiment all you like but we all do that every day, yeah even as kids.

That said. I certainly don't, agree with their views on school and the like. Opting out is not a valid way. You have to let them confront their troubles and decide if they are going to be changed by it or ignore them.

What'd I miss Eden? ;) (And I agree, he's FIVE! My God, at 5 years old, I thought I'd be an astronaut flying an X-Wing fighter in between watching cartoons 24/7 and eating junk food and nothing else!

Not exactly a capable mindset to start governing my own life yet. ;) I WILL say that I like the fact that the parents aren't treating their kids as if they're total idiots--I really hate it, when I'm out, when parents yell at kids for doing something as small as even looking at a book, not even a really-breakable book, or an expensive one, and it's not as if the parents are even moving about, they jsut yell at their kid the second they twitch, some of them--but there's a difference between letting your kid express himself or herself with finger paints and not even letting them know that they ARE a "himself" or "herself" and not preparing them for a world that will expect them to be one or the other...

I'm perfectly fine with LGBT activity, but that's a decision you make when you're a bit older--older than FIVE at least!--and both know what you are AND what the world expects you to be. Letting a kid do all this and not telling them the world is going to kick them in the ass for doing so, not even giving a warning, that's just cruel, irresponsible...heck, it's BOTH.)

Ugh, Krellin, you obviously have a difficult relationship with logical thought! Your second post addresses the idea that all social norms are bad; this is not *just* an idea I didn't espouse - it's one I specifically pointed out I'm not arguing. I *also* gave specific reasons how the norm we're talking about is harmful, so your last post is literally only serving to ask questions I've already answered. Gosh, Krellin! How embarrassing!

Your initial post was marginally better thought out, but not by much. First you start saying that if I'm for men wearing dresses...I should go out and wear dresses for some reason?! Why is this the case? I'm for homosexuality, but that doesn't mean I go out and sleep with men! (Well, actually I do, but that's because I'm homosexual. The argument is that straight people who are for gay rights don't actually need to sleep with someone their own sex.) Whether or not I personally want to cross-dress doesn't have any bearing on the discussion.

In addition, you're really just reiterating your view in a complicated way - your initial argument was that ill treatment of cross-dressers was justified because it violates a social norm. I pointed out that it shouldn't be a social norm because it is harmful. Now you've just given more evidence that it's a social norm, something we're not contesting here. This is a sign you hold your view intuitively or with little thought, and is called 'begging the question.'

If you're also trying to argue that cross-dressing is harmful because it's disturbing the workplace, this is a pretty tautological argument! When we reject the idea that cross-dressing shouldn't violate social norms, we *also* reject the idea that people should feel uncomfortable because of it. People in a workplace specifically *may* be harmed by it, but this is *because* it's a social norm, so if we take away the norm, it ceases to be harmful.

Another fallacy you've committed a few times in the thread is the 'argumentum ad populum.' Wikipedia has a lovely article on it you should read.

I'll agree perhaps a warning would be nice. Let the kid know hey. These are what other people tend to think and their nasty to people who are different. But hey you can choose to do whatever you want. Refusing to inform them of the world is going to result in a lot more hard knocks then are strictly necessary, and sure that may be the best way to learn. But sometimes its better to pad the blows a little.

At five I wanted to be an inventor, at 18 I want to be a mad scientist. I think if anything I was probably a little better at realism back then. ;)

I wouldn't say it's always OK to let a kid dress as they want. You wouldn't let a nine year old girl wear fishnets and makeup and a tube top. You wouldn't let a little boy wear a muddy little wifebeater to church.

This is getting to far down the rabbit hole for me.

And I agree again, Invictus:

The kid just being seemingly-miserable and already shutout at preschool should be a sign.

I know when I did all those little youth groups and kindergarten and all that, I talked to kids and played ball and stuff...and from about seven on--and to this day--I was and remain one of the more cynical and often anti-social folks around (I'm not shy, I LOVE to talk, as you all can tell, I just don't buy the whole "Let's be friends!" thing with most people, but I digress...)

I just really feel sorry for these kids, again, not even a warning, and now it sounds like the oldest one is already seeing what the real world is like and suffering for it...

Just want to say Synalon, that last post of yours was both informative and entertaining to read. <3 I think I love you, just a little. ;)

I think we may be getting a tad carried away here. So what if they sleep in the same bed? That was pretty much the norm until very recently and it never did our parent's and grandparent's generation much harm. Not telling anyone the child's sex won't make any difference either. Babies and toddlers of both sexes act in near identical ways anyway. Loads of little girls love playing with cars and things, and I'm not convinced anyone loves playing dress-up unless bullied into it. I rather think that by the time the child starts school the differences between it and other children will be practically nothing.

Having said that I am rather looking forward to when it rebels in its teenage years and becomes a neo conservative :D. If only I had a time machine...